#ShareTVWealth

[Manchester33]

Hi everyone,

I attended the Football Supporters Federation's yearly summit over the weekend and would like to spread a petition they are running with: #ShareTVWealth.

It's simple really, the premiership is getting this huge influx of money of the next few years and we believe part of it should be used for 3 things:
Drop prices for home fans;
Commit to the FSF’s Twenty’s Plenty away price cap;
Redistribute more wealth to support lower-league and grassroots football.

There is more information about it on their website, and you can sign the petition here - http://fsf.org.uk/petitions/share-tv-wealth/

It only takes two minutes!

 

[SWP's back]

Agree with 1 & 2.

Point three will just mean more shit footballers with shitter tats and hair would be able to drive nice cars.

 

[Manchester33]

Agree with 1 & 2.

Point three will just mean more shit footballers with shitter tats and hair would be able to drive nice cars.

There was a debate about this at the FSF meeting which was quite interesting/enlightening - the difference between what a Premiership club and a Championship club get are ridiculous. Whether it's accurate or not I'm not too sure, but apparently 1% of the TV deal the premiership is getting would make all of the League 1 and 2 clubs financially stable for 5 years.

In terms of points 1 + 2, the premiership doesn't have to pay £20m it was going to pay Norwich in parachute payments (Because they got promoted), they are going to spread that evenly among all the clubs - this would be enough money to completely cover the £20's plenty campaign, and it's money the premiership clubs only found out about in the last month, meaning they wouldn't have budgeted for it - it's an absolute no-brainer to give something back to us fans!

 

[Falastur]

There was a debate about this at the FSF meeting which was quite interesting/enlightening - the difference between what a Premiership club and a Championship club get are ridiculous. Whether it's accurate or not I'm not too sure, but apparently 1% of the TV deal the premiership is getting would make all of the League 1 and 2 clubs financially stable for 5 years.

In terms of points 1 + 2, the premiership doesn't have to pay £20m it was going to pay Norwich in parachute payments (Because they got promoted), they are going to spread that evenly among all the clubs - this would be enough money to completely cover the £20's plenty campaign, and it's money the premiership clubs only found out about in the last month, meaning they wouldn't have budgeted for it - it's an absolute no-brainer to give something back to us fans!

First of all, I find the claim that 1% of the TV deal could keep all of L1 & L2 teams solvent to be just a little bit of an exaggeration on the part of whoever made it up, but statistics aside the issue is that clubs receiving more money does not turn them profitable. As you get to see every year when clubs come up to the PL, what it does is incite the club chairmen to spend more money on signings and infrastructure, and whether they are financially stable or not depends on the chairman's financial acumen and scruples, not on how much more cash they get.

If I want to buy a TV and then you give me £1,000, it won't make me £1,000 better off, it will mean I have a TV worth £1,000 more than what I originally wanted - except that sometimes I get greedy and end up with a TV worth £1,500 more, and now I'm £500 worse off than when you helped me out. If your goal is to turn the FL sides financially stable, what you instead need is rules to force clubs not to turn a deficit, which is what the FL's FFP rules are already in place for, but that of course comes at the price of preventing any club from showing ambition, so it's swings and roundabouts.

Secondly, while the parachute payments are derided as essentially financially doping relegated clubs back into the PL, I can guarantee that they are all that stands between relegation and liquidation for insolvency for some clubs. When you get to the PL and you start to spend big, you can't afford to only plan for one year in the limelight. If you do that, your plans won't work, you simply have to gamble on a longer-term run, and that's what makes clubs financially reckless. So again, it's swings and roundabouts.

I'm all for doing things to reduce costs for the fans, but it's highly naive to think that football can be reformed by just cutting a hole in the purses of PL clubs and throwing bucketloads of their spare cash at lower-league teams. There needs to be a top-down and bottom-up series of reforms and regulations.

 

[The_Maverick]

First of all, I find the claim that 1% of the TV deal could keep all of L1 & L2 teams solvent to be just a little bit of an exaggeration on the part of whoever made it up, but statistics aside the issue is that clubs receiving more money does not turn them profitable. As you get to see every year when clubs come up to the PL, what it does is incite the club chairmen to spend more money on signings and infrastructure, and whether they are financially stable or not depends on the chairman's financial acumen and scruples, not on how much more cash they get.

If I want to buy a TV and then you give me £1,000, it won't make me £1,000 better off, it will mean I have a TV worth £1,000 more than what I originally wanted - except that sometimes I get greedy and end up with a TV worth £1,500 more, and now I'm £500 worse off than when you helped me out. If your goal is to turn the FL sides financially stable, what you instead need is rules to force clubs not to turn a deficit, which is what the FL's FFP rules are already in place for, but that of course comes at the price of preventing any club from showing ambition, so it's swings and roundabouts.

Secondly, while the parachute payments are derided as essentially financially doping relegated clubs back into the PL, I can guarantee that they are all that stands between relegation and liquidation for insolvency for some clubs. When you get to the PL and you start to spend big, you can't afford to only plan for one year in the limelight. If you do that, your plans won't work, you simply have to gamble on a longer-term run, and that's what makes clubs financially reckless. So again, it's swings and roundabouts.

I'm all for doing things to reduce costs for the fans, but it's highly naive to think that football can be reformed by just cutting a hole in the purses of PL clubs and throwing bucketloads of their spare cash at lower-league teams. There needs to be a top-down and bottom-up series of reforms and regulations.

Thanks for saving me alot of typing Falstur.

=!

 

[yorknomore]

Redistribute more wealth to support lower-league and grassroots football

City do plenty in the community and all this socialism in football seems to be more prevalent since City became rich,nobody gave a fuck about it before 2008 it seemed. Could you imagine if every largish business HAD to give money back to its roots?

Back in the real world Messi has just received 2.5 million bricks for laying a brick in Africa I wonder if UNICEF are disappointed with that?

 

[unlikelyfan19]

Back in the real world Messi has just received 2.5 million bricks for laying a brick in Africa I wonder if UNICEF are disappointed with that?

Seems like redundant work ;)

 

[Rammyblues]

The clock will not be turned back. Liverpool, Rags, Arsenal et al saw to that.

 

[Manchester33]

First of all, I find the claim that 1% of the TV deal could keep all of L1 & L2 teams solvent to be just a little bit of an exaggeration on the part of whoever made it up, but statistics aside the issue is that clubs receiving more money does not turn them profitable. As you get to see every year when clubs come up to the PL, what it does is incite the club chairmen to spend more money on signings and infrastructure, and whether they are financially stable or not depends on the chairman's financial acumen and scruples, not on how much more cash they get.

If I want to buy a TV and then you give me £1,000, it won't make me £1,000 better off, it will mean I have a TV worth £1,000 more than what I originally wanted - except that sometimes I get greedy and end up with a TV worth £1,500 more, and now I'm £500 worse off than when you helped me out. If your goal is to turn the FL sides financially stable, what you instead need is rules to force clubs not to turn a deficit, which is what the FL's FFP rules are already in place for, but that of course comes at the price of preventing any club from showing ambition, so it's swings and roundabouts.

Secondly, while the parachute payments are derided as essentially financially doping relegated clubs back into the PL, I can guarantee that they are all that stands between relegation and liquidation for insolvency for some clubs. When you get to the PL and you start to spend big, you can't afford to only plan for one year in the limelight. If you do that, your plans won't work, you simply have to gamble on a longer-term run, and that's what makes clubs financially reckless. So again, it's swings and roundabouts.

I'm all for doing things to reduce costs for the fans, but it's highly naive to think that football can be reformed by just cutting a hole in the purses of PL clubs and throwing bucketloads of their spare cash at lower-league teams. There needs to be a top-down and bottom-up series of reforms and regulations.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, as I agree with most of what your saying - the issue is that Championship clubs will be earning absolutely nothing compared to Premiership clubs meaning the same clubs with get promoted every year and the unlucky ones will have little or no hope of ever getting into the premiership and staying there. How can championship teams that pick up one or two million compete with the likes of Burnley who will get £60m in prem revenues then £20m a year in parachute payments... it wont happen and it will ruin competition at a lower level - not to mention the detrimental effect it will have on the English national team (that's already terribly poor anyway).

I had similar views to what you are saying, but some of the people who worked on the boards of lower league clubs have changed my views.

Although the FSF have openly admitted that it would be close to being impossible to convince the Prem clubs to agree to this.

 

[Manchester33]

The yearly amount the FA hands out to ALL clubs in League 1 and League 2 equals 14,400,000. If we say the TV deal is worth £3b (we reckon that it's closer to £5b BEFORE the european TV rights are settled (Which will take it closer to £8b for the premier league) - that initial £14.4m isn't even 0.05% - for 48 teams!

This is based on this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26365955 (League 1 clubs earn £360,000 on average and League 2 clubs earn £240,000 each year)

This amount of money is literally fuck all to the premiership - in a few years it won't even be 0.01% of the entire TV deal - for 48 clubs!